[adolph]

> One of the "Suggested safer alternatives" is Granite which can have silica content up to 45% (Engineered stone being 95%+)

> So instead of 2 years to develop silicosis it will instead take 4 years of working with the "safe alternatives"?

It isn’t a good idea to assume linear effects, especially with biology.

[Ekaros]

Specially when stuff you are comparing something rather novel basically existed before animals moved on land. Stone formations wearing down can causing dust has happened for hundreds of millions of years, if not billions. Biological systems are quite adapted to this type of exposure.

Just like heavy metals, some poisons, and some radioactivity.

[mmis1000]

I believe people work in mines develops silicosis all the time. Isn't this exactly where we found silicosis exists? Cutting natural stone didn't seems to be a 100% safe-proof option in my opinion.

[defrost]

Medical data shows that people who work in mines develop silicosis some of the time.

Cutting natural stone is not a 100% safe occupation (like almost every occupation).

The specific difference here in the case in Australia is that since Engineered Stone first entered the Australian market in the early 2000’s medical data shows a significant rise in silicosis cases.

It's not that Before Engineered Stone was 100% safe,

it's that Post Engineered Stone appears to be considerably less safe.

Maybe it's the resin, maybe it's the particle size that's so uniform, maybe it's a coincidence . . .